I agree almost 100%, but what a difference a small omission can make. You say the election of Obama would "... lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism." You should have included the word "some" or even "many". Even I, as a white American, know that a growing voice among Blacks is calling for an end to blaming racism for too many problems today.

Your careless overgeneralization is incorrect and unfair, and shows a degree of ignorance or apathy.

"MatheusR: October 30, 2008 17:29It took a while, but eventually even The Economist fell for Obama's spin doctors. We now have a centrist, respected international newspaper, with over 150 years of defending free markets, solidly in the tank for the most left-wing candidate of a major US political party in at least 75 years."All I can say is that Obama is likely to be LESS market-left wing than the repubs have already shown they ARE. As long as it is welfare for the wealthy/ corporations it is "OK", but bring in welfare of the common citizen, and it becomes 'liberal' 'communist' and 'socialist'. BAH humbug.

I think the biggest news of this campaign -- even bigger than Obama's impressive performance -- has been the disgrace the Republicans have made of themselves. And they obviously have no intention of stopping, as the comments here show.

I am about to do something I thought I would never do again: vote for a Democrat for president. As much as I found next to nothing appealing about the last twenty years' worth of Democratic nominees, I think Obama is one of those exceptionally rare politicians, whose presidency will mark a monumental moment in American history that will be discussed centuries from now. Not because he is black, by the way, but because he is Barack Obama.

Considering the emerging wave of Obamacans and Obamacons, I am not entirely surprised by the Economist's endorsement of him. I disagree about some of their assessment of McCain: they are dismayed that the McCain of 2008 is more of a social conservative, not like the McCain of 2000. I maintain that John McCain is one and the same, and neither now nor ever has been enough of a social conservative for my tastes. In fact, one of the reasons I prefer Obama to McCain is because I think Obama is the more socially conservative.

If we move beyond Obama's style and intellect, what appeals to me most about him is not his compassion about the steel worker who lost his job, or the college kid whose tuition is too high (though those are important issues, granted), but that he scolds deadbeat dads for running out on their children, and believes that the U.S. Constitution is such an amazing document that it must have been Divinely inspired.

As Ronald Reagan is my favorite president, I always use him as the gold standard by which to measure all candidates. And in this election, Obama, more so than McCain, is like Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Obama is smooth but the continuing drip of details pertaining to his socialst/Marxist tendancies are not consistent with the American fabric. This could explain the overwhelming global electoral preference for him contrasted to his just better than half advantage here at home. He most likely will win, but will be a Carter-like one termer.

America will wake up only when stench of socialism begins to show up on the pay stub, and freedom of speech (at least the kind that doesn't favor the socailist MSM) is meaningfully curtailed. As a center right voter, I like the idea of an African American president - a woman would have been just as good. We can, as a nation, once and for all put this victim rubbish behind us and compete in future elections on pure merit of ideas (at least until we get fat and happy again).

Many of the Democrats in the majority congress are from historically conservative districts because of the abject failure of (vanquished) elected officails from the Republican party who sold their fically conservative souls the lobbyists at the pig trough.

The full effect of total Democrat control will be felt soon enough and those districts will once again be in play for true conservatives who will actually represent the interests of their district.

Lord willing, we will return to a centrist presidency in the next election with power split between the legislative and executive branches - America functions better that way.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Some of the articles the magazine has run were making me wonder if the coming endorsement was going to force me to cancel my subscription. I should've known that The Economist, conservative-leaning though it may be, would have more sense than that. While I agree with the magazine's warnings that Obama's election won't fundamentally change everything about the US that other countries dislike, Obama means progress while McCain means... well, I don't want my comment to be deleted. Thanks again.

Some folks in this thread didn't get the memo: The McCain campaign is no longer accusing Obama of being a Muslim, a Socialist or a Terrorist. McCain has publically withdrawn all three claims. You need to keep up.

Your endorsement rings true for me on many points and I would consider myself more Republican than Democrat - having voted for Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 (the first time). The current "Republican" party is a shame and disgrace to itself and those that feebly follow it without question.
For all those who purport to think America will be better off in an Obama-less direction, they are sadly mistaken. Let us all hope that racism (in whatever strength) and mistaken loyalties do not steer us into the world's next Great Depression and war mongering a McCain (and worse, Palin) presidency could take us. John McCain would have been better to run as himself instead of listening to Rove, Cheney, the Far Right or whoever whispered that he should change. No previous experience is enough for the President of the United States and one of the loudest voices in the world. It does need vision and charisma - that seems more demonstrated by Obama than McCain.

Senator McCain is neither educated or schooled. He represents a disfunctional political governing design failure construct. Obama with his "thin resume" and "lack of "excutive governing experience" represents innovative creative solutions for the collective survival of all people. He is inclusice and universal in his thinking. Therefore, he is the leader of our time.

Boy, a lot of Socialist in here. Do any of you realize Obama's background and the company he has kept? All radical left wing Socialists, some of who don't mind bombing Government Buildings in an effort to overthrow the Government, with absolutely no feelings about killing inocent people. I judge the Man/Child Obama, by the company he kept all those years, and just recently threw under the Bus because he needs to appear moderate until he is elected. He is a phony.

I agree with The Economist about endorsing Mr Obama. America and the world need radical change and Mr McCain, despite being significantly better than Bush (not a big effort), is too close to the system that brought us to today's predicaments.
Obama may have less "experience" -- but who wants the type of experience of today's politicians -- he is definitely closer to people's needs and he can tap any expert in the world for advise, if it comes to it. If the President of the United States cannot call on qualified advisors who can?
Finally, he is young and that can bring in fresh air in a world that is dominated by a too strongly rooted establishment.
Let's give him a chance!!

The reader who urges The Economist to 'butt out of our election cycle and we will do the same towards yours' misunderstands the global impact of America's decision on November 4. The rest of the world will be affected by the US choice of president, as The Economist editorial points out, whether or not we like it. At least 6 of the last 8 years have exacerbated global insecurity, culminating in a global financial recession whose origins lie in neo-liberal Ponzi capitalism. The Economist is right to point out that re-electing a Republican - even if he were a sprightly youngster with a sensible deputy - would be tantamount to endorsing the worst mess of the past fifty years.The Economist is, moreover, at best Atlanticist and in practice a right-leaning US publication, the majority of whose revenues depend upon the implicit support of mostly Us global institutions, and whose largest subscription base is in North America. As such, it has as much 'right' to openly endorse a candidate in the US or any other election. Whether it is hubristic to declaim its position is another story. Let us not forget that The Economist wholeheartedly backed the Iraq invasion and subsequent debacle, and was - still is - the cheerleader for red blooded free market 'deregulation' which has led to the present crisis of global capitalism. Whilst applauding the editorial, these caveats are worth noting, with due respect, of course.

This race in many ways resembles Nixon vs Kennedy in 1960, where we had a seasoned, experienced Protestant politician vs. an unseasoned, relatively inexperienced Catholic. To my deep regret I voted for Nixon on experience and have always been amazed at how assuredly Kennedy took the reins, made Catholcism in the White House socially acceptable, inspired the world and overcame the Cuban missle crisis. From this experience I'll never again vote for experience over integrity, character and intelligence and hope Obama wins big time. Of course he'll make mistakes, but he deserves the chance to bring us Camelot II.John G. EresianHollis, NH

This article confirms what I've suspected for several years. This magazine is first and foremost a political magazine. How can The Economist endorse someone who argues against free trade, will promise to raise taxes, will promise to raise government spending, and will promise to redistribute wealth? How can you endorse a man with a tendency to silence his critics in the media, pulling out the race card as needed? A man who won't admit to his associations with some of the most dangerous people in America. A man that is rigging the election through ACORN's false voter registrations. It's funny, but The Economist usually identifies the above characteristics with the brutal dictators of authoritarian regimes throughout the world - people you have correctly criticized. Why the about-face on your principles now? The Economist - you have no integrity. You are a sham. I hope you have enough integrity to post an honest comment.

Obama has earned my respect and admiration for the way he's been handling himself through all this ya-ya. As a Hillary supporter, once, I was tepid about him for a while there. Not at all now. I also like the way my kid handled an obnoxious brat who was saying very ugly things to her yesterday. She too feels she deserves to be President. We shall see...